user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
of course it's not right, but just like countries put caps on medication, and americans have to make up the difference for the research, large insurance companies can make deals on patient care for their insured. If it's ok for socialist countries to do that, how can we complain if our insurance companies do the same thing.
It is not right. I have seen the same thing ... for those with Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, look for the notation AB next to the line item charge on your statement. That indicates the provider accepted the insurers' payment as Full Payment, even if the original charge was more.
This is due to the financial power of the Insurance Bloc. Uninsured or self-insured don't get this treatment, effectively paying significantly more.
The uninsured are, in effect, subsidizing the insured ... ironic, when you think about it.
Canada is having controversy over whether or not to allow two-tier health care, but that would be the worst, because the ppl with the fattest wallets would get the best treatment. I think more Americans actually like our current health care system, even if it's ailing right now
by aya on Wed Dec 01, 04 9:45am
[+]
this is amazing
It's the American way. The only way the rich can get richer is to make the poor poorer.
larrynelmira, did you know that these drug companies spend quite a bit more on advertising than on their much-vaunted research? I have a problem with that.
by mojo on Wed Dec 01, 04 10:30am
[+]
** karma **
Mojo, cath you're mistaken on this. Anyone who can pay is automatically charged extra to make up for those who walk in, recieve free medical care, then walk out without paying. My mother worked for a hospital for years, and this is exactly what they do. If you have insurance you can expect to be stuck with your bill, and the bill of the last guy who didn't feel like paying.
Socialised medicine however flawed, is the best system. In the UK anyone will be given treatment irrespective of their ability to pay. Those who wish private care can also go down that path.
I do realise to some of those on this site, the word socialism is a scary one and they feel to be even seen with the word is a taint.
My husband and I have been there, Herzog. Maybe it's different in your mother's state. There needs to be a change in the system, nationwide. People shouldn't lose their homes because they have the temerity to get sick.
by mojo on Wed Dec 01, 04 2:16pm
[+]
But when did such abstracts as right and wrong ever matter to a corporate bottom line?
It IS immoral.
So you believe we should legislate morality?
Herzog, that's not what I was questioning in this ballot. But to answer your question, Mr. Bush certainly does. (E.G. his proposed amendment to the Constitution, banning gay marriage.)
by mojo on Thu Dec 02, 04 10:52am
[+]
'that's not what I was questioning in this ballot'
It was in response to euro.
'But to answer your question, Mr. Bush certainly does. (E.G. his proposed amendment to the Constitution, banning gay marriage.)'
That didn't answer my question at all, you just pointed at someone else and tried to ignore the question.
Governments shouldn't try to legislate morality, it's always a disastor. Bush is dead wrong on that issue and I've said so many times.
Cheers, herzog! I didn't know you disagreed on that issue, but I agree with your disagreement :-)
by mojo on Thu Dec 02, 04 4:05pm
[+]
herz: You are right.
But that does not make mojo and myself wrong on the other issue.
So the consensus is yes it's ok to legislate morality if it benefits a left-wing cause, and no it's not ok to legislate morality if it benefits a righ-wing cause.
Sounds hypocritical to me.
It is wrong but quite typical of the Right, sadly. Saying things like, "I want to keep more of MY money."
herzog- Yes, morals and politics MUST be intertwined. Laws and governments exist to uphold morals and order.
So you'd have no problem with laws to do away with gay marriage, abortion, and any other practices that are deemed immoral by the majority?
"Laws and governments exist to uphold morals and order. "
byebye to EUROTOPIAs credibility.Thats as ignorant a statement anyone has ever made on this site
Well, call me short-sighted, but I am glad that governments exist to keep, for example, pedophilia illegal.
herzog, pedophilia is deemed immoral by the majority.
|
|
